Newspaper editorial board endorsements of candidates aren't usually something I pay much attention to, and that it's the NYT in this case is neither surprising nor, for me, meaningful. But their endorsement of Clinton lines up with my thoughts on her. I don't know that she's my idea candidate, but I think she's a much more practical nominee than Sanders, and head and shoulders over anything the GOP is likely to put forward.
Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Nomination
Voters have the chance to choose one of the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential candidates in modern history.
94 view(s)
I don't think that either candidate's govt would look significantly different from the other's after the fights with congress, special interest lawsuits, etc. Just so long as none of the clown car republicans wnd up in the white house
+Joshua Alvarez With a GOP House (and probable Senate), I agree that neither Clinton nor Sanders is likely to be able to revolutionize American society into some sort of Communistic Marxist Dystopia.
I don't think the presidency is a position for idealists. I think it's messy and complicated and needs someone who can find balances and figure out how to work with people.
I really desperately want to see Sanders as Secretary of Labor. Or maybe HUD. He's a single issue guy, put him in a single issue post.
+Brittany Constable That's an interesting option; the question is whether he, like Warren, arguably has more effect in the Senate than in an administration post.
I agree with what you say about presidents and idealism. The danger, in fact, is that an idealist, faced with an un-ideal world, will try to change reality to fit the ideals; the results there can be either being ineffectual or being downright dangerous.
At the same time, I do want a president who brings some moral and ideological compass to the post (thus one of my many problems with Donald Trump). Ideals are important, even critical, as navigational aids.